Ten Leaky Buckets

[Harryprice]

If you have 10 pieces of evidence that are individually inconclusive, they can be pieced together to make a strong case if the evidence is tangible (material evidence, CCTV footage, fingerprints, etc., in a crime); but if the evidence is intangible (the psychic, dowser, and table tippers all indicated the presence of a ghost), then you cannot build a strong case from the pieces of evidence..

There is another key difference in your example. When putting together evidence about who commited a crime, you at least know the crime itself took place. You do not know there was ever a ghost, or spirit, present at a given location.

The 'buckets' type argument is usually used to support the existence of ghosts in general rather than any one ghost in particular. Some people talk about twigs, rather than buckets. If you have a lot of 'twigs' (bits of weak evidence) apparently supporting the idea of ghosts, together they make a sturdy bunch capable of holding up the concept. In reality, these 'twigs' only support evidence for ghosts because of they way they are interpreted by people who already believe ghosts exist.

it is actually quite easy to demonstrate that there is something weird being reported at a particular location. All you need is multiple, independent witnesses reporting similar things. What is much more difficult is demonstrating that the 'weird thing' is a spirit or other paranormal entity. Most of the 'evidence' for that comes from psychics!

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I had a discussion the other day about Victor Zammit's challenge to skeptics to debunk (or rebut as he says) his claim that the afterlife exists.

His argument is based upon an accumulation of evidence (from NDEs and EVPs to mediums etc.) each of which is not conclusive in itself but, he claims, gains the status of being irrefutable (I'm paraphrasing) when considered as a whole. It brought the 'ten leaky buckets' argument to mind - which I used.

My argument made the distinction between tangible and intangible evidence.

If you have 10 pieces of evidence that are individually inconclusive, they can be pieced together to make a strong case if the evidence is tangible (material evidence, CCTV footage, fingerprints, etc., in a crime); but if the evidence is intangible (the psychic, dowser, and table tippers all indicated the presence of a ghost), then you cannot build a strong case from the pieces of evidence.

So I don't think the '10 leaky buckets' argument is fallacious in itself; it's more a case of it not being valid when the evidence is not tangible.

John, is this what you meant?
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html

If the discussion you mention was conducted online, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

[Graham Lappin]

I had a discussion the other day about Victor Zammit's challenge to skeptics to debunk (or rebut as he says) his claim that the afterlife exists......

John, is this what you meant?
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html

Trouble is he talks about "genuine" mediums and "genuine" psychics. I think those buckets are not leaking as much as the bottom has fallen out.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Trouble is he talks about "genuine" mediums and "genuine" psychics. I think those buckets are not leaking as much as the bottom has fallen out.

Zammit is so preposterous that it's hard to know where to start.

His condition 2, for example:

2. The offeror and the applicant will agree that the applicant has demonstrated the technical skills to rebut the evidence. This is a fundamental and most important condition.

This is supported ( if that's the word) by this:

Because there have been applicants who wasted a great deal of our precious time and money who had not examined the evidence in detail, it has become essential and a pre-requisite that prior to any actual submission of any rebuttals of the evidence in Stage Two of the Challenge, a potential applicant must initially submit to the offeror a detailed exposition of how the applicant is going to rebut the evidence outlined in the above Preface.Further, see 2 below.

and by this:

15. Because the afterlife evidence is highly technical, first, the applicant must exhibit understanding of iScientific Method; secondly, of the admissibility of evidence - inter alia the differences between objective, subjective and anecdotal evidence and thirdly, the applicant must have been identified in recognized public news-media that the applicant is a genuine, bona fides investigator of the afterlife.

All of this, according to Zammit, because:

Also, it was suggested that the psychics ought to put up a similar challenge reflecting the skeptics' own conditions for the stated prize.

There is, of course, literally nothing in the JREF Million-Dollar Challenge corresponding to Zammit's preening and question-begging.

If there's a prize for a Cargo Cult MDC, Zammit is a strong contender in a good year.

And if he's going to talk legal Latin, he ought to be able to tell the difference between bona fides and bona fide.

[Croydon Bob]

And if he's going to talk legal Latin, he ought to be able to tell the difference between bona fides and bona fide.

He claims to be a lawyer. I understand that it has been established in the past that he has some kind of legal qualification and has had some kind of legal job. But he doesn't display the organised thinking and intelligence of most of the real lawyers that I've met. He's not very bright and a total raving nutter.

I did a talk about him many years ago and his website is now totally different but no more sane.